Libertarians

[Mr. Wynand]

Why did Rand hate libertarians?

[JMartins]

Why did Rand hate libertarians?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...us_libertarians

[James I]

Is it true that libertarians like Rothbard and Friedman plagiarised Rand's ideas? I am ignorant on this subject so I don't know what parts of capitalism Rand thought up and which she didn't. I thought that most capitalist ideology came from classical liberalism.

[tito]

They undoubtedly took ideas from Rand. While nobody can claim Rand invented capitalism, she certainly was the first rational and integrated defender of it on a *moral* basis.

The Libertarian movement says "Yeah capitalism is good for all of us, inalienable rights, liberty blah blah blah. But it doesn't matter why. God did it/ there is no morality/ its for the greater good"

They are essentially purveyors of Rand's soundbites... while simultaneously rejecting all they stand for.

[Jake_Ellison]

Is it true that libertarians like Rothbard and Friedman plagiarised Rand's ideas? I am ignorant on this subject so I don't know what parts of capitalism Rand thought up and which she didn't. I thought that most capitalist ideology came from classical liberalism.

Why lump Milton Friedman in with those people? When was he in the Libertarian Party?

"I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.' And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle."(Friedman)

Ayn Rand had a problem with the Libertarian Party, and their member's various religions, philosophies and politics, not with economists who described themselves as libertarian.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[John McVey]

I don't doubt that US libertarians are plagiarists (or at least those whose pedigree of learning and acceptance can be traced back to Rothbard et al), but I would not be so quick to say the same about UK or European libertarians. For instance, I recall reading several years ago an English book published in the late 19th century by some obscure classical-liberal (whose name escapes me) that expressly said that it was wrong to initiate force, ie some several decades before Miss Rand began writing anything. And, before that, one could also find the principle in Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Similarly, US libertarians are a different breed entirely from those in the UK and the EU. I could easily see myself respecting many UK "libertarians" - most of whom are really just better described as updated classical liberals in need of philosophical training - but I will never respect either the Rothbard/Rockwell crowd or those who latch on to a poltical creed because it promises to let them get on with being a dope-fiend or paedophile.

JJM

[Mr. Wynand]

For instance, I recall reading several years ago an English book published in the late 19th century by some obscure classical-liberal (whose name escapes me) that expressly said that it was wrong to initiate force, ie some several decades before Miss Rand began writing anything.

JJM

You must mean Fredrich Bastiat.

[John McVey]

You must mean Fredrich Bastiat.

No, it was later than that. The book dated from the 1890's or so, and I am pretty sure it was English.

JJM

Update: I did a little digging, and I think it was probably Auberon Herbert. Even if it weren't him in particular, his ideas demonstrate my point about UK libertarians having an origin in time well before Miss Rand's discoveries.

Edited December 26, 2008 by John McVey

[Sir Andrew]

Update: I did a little digging, and I think it was probably Auberon Herbert. Even if it weren't him in particular, his ideas demonstrate my point about UK libertarians having an origin in time well before Miss Rand's discoveries.

We're not talking about the UK. We're talking about the US. Much different political scene.

And an "origin in time before Miss Rand" is meaningless; libertarianism is not a full-fledged philosophy like Objectivism.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Sir Andrew

[DavidOdden]

Ayn Rand had a problem with the Libertarian Party, and their member's various religions, philosophies and politics, not with economists who described themselves as libertarian.

Consider her statement in The Ayn Rand Letter 1976 Vol. IV, No. 3 regarding Friedman "I have virtually nothing in common with Mr. Friedman, whom I do not regard as an advocate of capitalism": Friedman was not a member of the LP.

Rand's denunciation of libertarians was before the LP. The Ford Hall Forum where Rand said

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

was in November 1971, and the LP did not exist until Nolan's get-together on Dec. 11, 1971, and it wasn't even announced until the end of January 1972. In other words, it was not just about the LP.

[John McVey]

We're not talking about the UK. We're talking about the US.

Don't be so damn parochial. Libertarianism as an explicitly named movement is global, and to avoid looking like a dogmatist on that stage it helps to know some history. As it is, the wikipedia says that Rothbard was familiar with Herbert.

Much different political scene.

I do believe I said exactly that.

JJM

[Marc K.]

by some obscure classical-liberal [...] that expressly said that it was wrong to initiate force, ie some several decades before Miss Rand began writing anything. And, before that, one could also find the principle in Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. [emphasis added]

The emphasized idea, divorced from its rational/moral base, is precisely the problem with the libertarian movement.

They take the above principle as primary without its philosophic base and therefore they misinterpret and misapply it. They see no contradiction between their principles and those of pacifists, anarchists, nihilists, skeptics, even marxists. In other words they have no consistent set of ideas which integrates all of their knowledge, they have no philosophy.

[John McVey]

The emphasized idea, divorced from its rational/moral base, is precisely the problem with the libertarian movement.

Yes, I am well aware of that, and you wont get any argument from me on the matter.

However, as true as that is, it is missing my point. I was responding to the idea that all libertarians were nothing but plagiarists of the words of Miss Rand. I was pointing out that there are other schools of libertarianism besides the US one, that these schools predate Miss Rand by a long shot, and that some US libertarians could be motivated by learning from these schools rather than from Rothbard et al (who are mere plagiarists). My warning is that if people just take the plagiarism idea and run with it rather than knowing a bit about history then they will look like the very dogmatists our opponents claim us to be.

JJM

Edited December 27, 2008 by John McVey

[MartianHoplite]

Ayn Rand hated some "libertarians" because they were genuinely worthy of contempt, such as Milton Friedman, who, among other things, invented income tax withholding.

Other libertarians she despised because they admired her work without being able to accept it uncritically as inerrant, revealed truth.

This seems to be the basis for her allegations of "plagerism" against Rothbard. (full disclosure, I am no more an orthodox, Rothbardian than I am an orthodox Randian. Though I admire both greatly, I am willing to criticise each where their conclusions differ from mine.) Rothbard seems to have been influenced by Rand but his mentor was Ludwig von Mises, who's work he continued to develop and expand upon throughout his life.

A lot of Rand's criticism of Libertarianism is simply unfair.

But of course, anarchists are collectivists.

This is factually incorrect. Libertarian anarchists are emphatically not collectivists. We simply take the principles of non-aggression, laissez faire economics and individual liberty to their logical conclusion. No coercive state (no matter how "limited") can be justified morally because it must necessarily initiate aggression or cease being a state.

Say I decide that the agents of the objectivist, minimal state are not, in fact, acting according to natural, objective law, so I set up my own competing state, and begin recruiting citizens. I have in no way initiated aggression against you. I have simply offered people a service I feel to be better than the one currently on the market. Do you permit me to compete freely in providing the services your state is offering? Fine, then its not really a "state" by the classical definition and we effectively have market anarchy. Or do you initiate aggression against me to bring me back to heel? Well then your state is an aggressor and is morally indefensible.

Furthermore, no coercive arrangements can be "necessary" or "beneficial" in an economic sense when compared to voluntary exchange within a market economy. In order to allocate resources rationally we must have prices to represent information about consumer demands and the conditions of production. In order to have prices we must have voluntary exchange. Any act of coercion for the purpose of providing a service, whether it be law, security or any other, disrupts the price system, distorts the information it contains, and makes rational economic calculation impossible. If law and security are to be provided rationally and efficiently, therefore, they must be provided by competing market firms just as shoes, food, automobiles, education, health care and all other goods and services must be provided by voluntary exchange in the marketplace.

Now, if you disagree with all that, fine, that is your right. I ask simply that you disagree with what Libertarian anarchism is rather than painting it as something it isn't. If you want to criticise what Libertarian anarchism is, we welcome the opportunity to defend ourselves, but you cheapen yourselves and weaken your case when you spread untruths about rival points of view without bothering to check their veracity.

They see no contradiction between their principles and those of pacifists, anarchists, nihilists, skeptics, even marxists.

Again, just simply not true. Except for "anarchists" the various schools of though you just cited range from delusional to depraved and directly contradict what I hold to be true and just. You will not find many Libertarians who are willing to even give the time of day to nihilists or marxists. Few would regard pacifism as a threat, but fewer still would see it as anything other than silly. It may be the case that Libertarians, particularly the "Libertarian Party," are too inclusive, but we don't have quite the "big tent" you make us out to have.

[Zip]

In order to allocate resources rationally we must have prices to represent information about consumer demands and the conditions of production.

What resources are you seeking to allocate? To whom? How?

Rationally allocated? This seems to counter both Objectivism and what I understand about Anarcho-Libertarianism.

Such an allocation can only be made based on the right to property and that simple fact demands that there be a law protecting the individuals right to his property (of whatever kind) and having such a law demands that there be some entity capable of enforcing it. That fact in turn leads to the conclusion that that entity be beyond the control and manipulation of any individual, group of individuals or monetary compulsion within a society which is the basis of government.

[prosperity]

Say I decide that the agents of the objectivist, minimal state are not, in fact, acting according to natural, objective law, so I set up my own competing state, and begin recruiting citizens. I have in no way initiated aggression against you. I have simply offered people a service I feel to be better than the one currently on the market.

So, you want the right to set up a gang, essentially? Because that is what you are describing. It's not a Government, it's you setting up a community of your own and calling it a state. Whatever laws you set may or may not be objective, but what you have is a dictatorship, with you in control...or a gang with you and some friends in control. OK.

What happens if someone within your "state" decides YOUR rules are unfair? They set up a competing "state" within your boundaries, call for your overthrow (disregarding your property rights because you are a dictator and they are claiming you have no right to their property or yours due to "violating their freedom" or "right to property")...now what? Who handles this dispute? You? heh. Them? heh...

Do you just ignore each other? How do you decide on the terms of procedure for any kind of legal hearing or binding arbitration? Where will it be held? etc. etc.

...I don't think the anarchists have really thought this through. This is something I've never heard any meaningful answer to from them. Since there is no Government, you basically have competing businesses serving as entities that are supposedly capable of redistributing force and applying justice. I've never seen that done without a disinterested party. And, the only disinterested party is one that cannot be bought...in other words, it's not a business.

[Jake_Ellison]

No coercive state (no matter how "limited") can be justified morally because it must necessarily initiate aggression or cease being a state.

Ayn Rand's perfectly clear and impossible to misunderstand limit on the Capitalist State is that it may not initiate force. I'm sorry, but for you to then just ignore that on an Objectivist website, and say with absolute conviction that any State must "necessarily initiate aggression" is just unbelievably stupid.

Say I decide that the agents of the objectivist, minimal state are not, in fact, acting according to natural, objective law, so I set up my own competing state, and begin recruiting citizens. I have in no way initiated aggression against you. I have simply offered people a service I feel to be better than the one currently on the market.

What exactly is this service you are offering? Are you offering to patrol the streets and shoot every agressor, whether they are murdering someone or stealing a piece of bread? Or are you offering to patrol the streets, and only shoot murderers, but let thieves go free?

Please be as concrete as possible, and take as much time as you wish to describe the concrete actions you will be taking and the ones you won't be, once this enterprise is up and running, and why each action or lack of action is perfectly justified, in your view.

[MartianHoplite]

Ayn Rand's perfectly clear and impossible to misunderstand limit on the Capitalist State is that it may not initiate force.

If this is true, then she and I are in agreement. However, in the relevant passages of hers I've read, she criticises market anarchism harshly and instead advocates a small, but nevertheless monopolistic, state to provide security and law. This state, in order to remain a state, must necessarily exclude competition in the services it provides. Forceful exclusion of peaceful competition is initiation of aggressive force. This will become clearer when I describe, below, how such a competitive agency of defence might go about providing said services. I am not ignoring what Miss Rand has said on this subject, I am saying it contains a contradiction. An Objectivist state must either give rise to market anarchy or become an aggressor.

Please be as concrete as possible, and take as much time as you wish to describe the concrete actions you will be taking and the ones you won't be

Absolutely. This is a fair request. I will provide some detail by way of responding to specific elements of the post before yours.

So, you want the right to set up a gang, essentially? Because that is what you are describing.

I'm describing a business. I want the right to set up a business. Such a business would, for a fee, provide to voluntary customers such services as law, defence, security, and arbitration.

Any Rand says that a capitalist society requires adherence to natural, objective law, and this requires a territorial, monopolistic, state to formulate and enforce. Yet she is putting forth a double standard here. Does it not also require adherence to natural law to create a ton of steel, a bushel of wheat, or an airplane which flies? Must these goods and services also be monopolized by a state? Clearly Rand would not claim that this is the case.

If I were starting a business of this sort, I would start by drafting a minimal set of laws, based on natural law, proscribing various forms of initiatory aggression, murder, theft, trespass, vandalism etc... This would be the law my customers would sign up to be protected by. Protection would be from a private security firm. Other codes of law could be formulated for other purposes, such as establishing a framework for commercial contracts. The basic principle of contract law, make good the debts and obligations you voluntarily assume to others and pledge in exchange for some value in return, can be found in natural law. Still, most of contract law will be procedural in nature, rather than ethical. What will matter ( as with say, traffic laws) will be that there are rules, and people are aware of them, rather than what, precisely, those rules are.

Here we can espy an advantage to competition. If there are a number of commercial codes in use, put forth by different entrepreneurs, then a business may decide, based on its particular circumstances, that one code or another offers advantages to it, its suppliers, and its customers. One business may even use different codes of contract law for different situation, different customers, or different products and services it offers. So long as the basic principle of contract is upheld, the varied forms of contract law that arise in a market can offer flexibility that a one-size fits all government cannot.

Getting back to the basic code of law. A free market security firm could provide protection to individuals and businesses from initiatory aggression. People have the right to defend themselves. People have the right to contract. People have the right to contract for defence.

These business arrangement might take the form of an alarm system connected to an office which will dispatch a response unit to investigate invasions, regular security patrols, personal bodyguards or a gated community with a continuously manned guard post. Again, in the diversity of security services available in a free market, we can see advantage. Not everyone's security needs are going to be identical, and allowing people to bargain freely for security services will enable them to tailor a security package to their specific requirements without having to suffer, as those who depend on government police often do, either from vulnerabilities where they would willingly pay for more protection, or from unnecessary and overprotective measures that are out of all proportion to the actual risks posed and just simply not worth the nuisance or expense.

It's not a Government, it's you setting up a community of your own and calling it a state.

You're right, its not a government. Therein lies the appeal. Unlike a government, a private security firm would not be able to unilaterally determine which services to provide, how to provide them and what to charge for them, insulated from all competition. Instead, it would have to offer customers services worth what they are asking in return. Competition will tend to produce better protection at lower prices. Finally, I would not call any business of mine a state, nor would it bear any resemblance to such.

Whatever laws you set may or may not be objective, but what you have is a dictatorship, with you in control...

In the marketplace, the consumer is sovereign. If I alienate my customers either by charging too much, failing to deliver what I promise, or trampling their rights, they can seek out another producer. If I attempt to forcefully stop them from doing so, they can hire another security firm to smack me down. It's a losing proposition for me to play petty tyrant rather than focusing on providing a quality service.

What happens if someone within your "state" decides YOUR rules are unfair?

They contract for protection from a different source.

Do you just ignore each other?

I don't ignore competitors, I respond to them by trying to provide better products and/or better prices.

I don't think the anarchists have really thought this through.

You're right, we've decided to chuck 6000 years or so of historical precedent in the wastebasket on a whim. We've decided to reject everything anyone we've ever known or respected has held dear and true without even engaging in the slightest contemplation... Yeah, whatever.

you basically have competing businesses serving as entities that are supposedly capable of redistributing force and applying justice. I've never seen that done without a disinterested party. And, the only disinterested party is one that cannot be bought...

Disinterest is a marketable commodity. If consumers demand it, it will arise. The American Arbitration Association already makes a living of selling disinterest in the arbitration of millions of cases per year, mostly contract disputes, worth billions upon billions of dollars. If they didn't maintain their reputation for scrupulous objectivity, nobody would take their disputes to them, and they know it.

Now, anarcho-capitalists are not pacifists. We recognise that some people are psychopaths and simply have to be put down. Furthermore, if my life or safety are being threatened, I'm not going to spare the life of some scumbag at the possible expense of my own. However, most of us feel that it is best to limit the use of force where possible and to try and reintegrate offenders back into productive society. If I break into your house while you're away and steal a bunch of your stuff what happens will probably be something like the following. Your insurance company will indemnify you for the amount of the loss. Then they will investigate and try their best to find me. Since they're on the hook for the amount I stole, they have a huge incentive to find me. They will build a case against me and take it to a reputable arbitrator. The arbitrator will contact me and give me the opportunity to defend myself, but will not force me or any witnesses to come in or give testimony. I will be tried, either in person or in absentia. If a judgement is passed against me, restitution will be demanded and entered with a credit bureau as a debt. I can appeal with an arbitrator of my choosing. If my arbitrator is reputable, my arbitrator and the insurance company's arbitrator will have to choose a third, mutually acceptable arbitrator to hear a final appeal. If my arbitrator is not reputable, and in fact, is know to take payments from his clients to give specific rulings, he will be ignored. Until I make good the damage my theft caused, the debt will follow me like a black cloud, shutting me out of the mainstream of society. I will have trouble buying a car, renting an apartment, getting a job or a cell phone, I will have to live in the cash economy. I will be hounded by collections agencies, my personal property will be taken in lieu of repayment. I will be unable to contract for protection and will stand alone and unprotected against such other thieves and criminals as I associate with. If I am a repeat offender, I will be surveiled by insurance detectives and thwarted even in the criminal means of earning my sustenance. In short, it will be far cheaper for me to go legit and make good my past crimes than to continue the criminal life.

What resources are you seeking to allocate? To whom? How?

The provision of any product or service requires the allocation of scarce resources (labor, capital, raw materials) to the satisfaction of specific consumer demands. Security is no exception.

How are a security officer's hours to be best used in order to provide protection to customers? Is capital to be invested in cars, helicopters, guns? How much and in what combination? These are questions any security firm must grapple with. They are questions that a free market firm can answer easily. Will customers pay more for this service than it costs us to provide it? Yes, we'll profit, that service is worth providing, it makes good use of our resources. No, its not worth providing, we'll lose money, that is an inefficient use of our scarce resources.

State governments, being coercive monopolies, cannot answer these questions. They can unilaterally decide how and how much security to provide. They can unilaterally set the price they will charge. They do not have to convince their customers that the services they provide are worth the cost of providing them. Therefore, even if they sincerely seek to enforce only natural, objective law, it is inconceivable that they will be able to do so efficiently, or economically, since they lack even the tools to determine if they are being efficient or not.

[Zip]

Sounds to me like the anarcho-libertarian ideal is "my law is better than your law"

There's absolutely no way that is going to end up badly... is there.

[flatlander]

Say I decide that the agents of the objectivist, minimal state are not, in fact, acting according to natural, objective law, so I set up my own competing state, and begin recruiting citizens. I have in no way initiated aggression against you. I have simply offered people a service I feel to be better than the one currently on the market. Do you permit me to compete freely in providing the services your state is offering? Fine, then its not really a "state" by the classical definition and we effectively have market anarchy. Or do you initiate aggression against me to bring me back to heel? Well then your state is an aggressor and is morally indefensible.

You are harking back to the ludicrous idea of "competing governments." There can be no "competing governments" in any given geographic area. A government must have a legalized monopoly on the retaliatory use of force in its given geographic area. Otherwise it is not a government. It must be strictly limited by a constitution of objective laws so that it may act as an agent to protect the individual rights of its citizens and not as an oppressor.

In your "competing state" example, what would be the logical outcome of two neighbors, each signed up under a different "state", who get into a dispute that turns violent? Tactical teams show up from both "competing" states and the result is at best a Mexican standoff and at worst a bloody shooting war in a residential neighborhood. Imagine the results if surrounding neighbors are signed up with additional competing governments. Do you want to live in a Quentin Tarantino movie? You would reduce the police to the level of a private security firm, and the rule of law would come to an abrupt, violent end. Your competing governments situation is best described as anarchy.

[Marc K.]

MartianHoplite:

It is proper that when you quote someone, some indication should be given as to whom you are quoting. You quoted the following from me:

They see no contradiction between their principles and those of pacifists, anarchists, nihilists, skeptics, even marxists.

And this was your reply:

Again, just simply not true. Except for "anarchists" the various schools of though you just cited range from delusional to depraved and directly contradict what I hold to be true and just. You will not find many Libertarians who are willing to even give the time of day to nihilists or marxists. Few would regard pacifism as a threat, but fewer still would see it as anything other than silly. It may be the case that Libertarians, particularly the "Libertarian Party," are too inclusive, but we don't have quite the "big tent" you make us out to have.

I'm afraid you are making my case. You say that these "schools of thought" "contradict what I hold to be true and just". The question is: can they call themselves Libertarians? And I think the answer is: yes, as long as they espouse "principles of non-aggression". You imply that some Libertarians would "give the time of day to nihilists or marxists." You admit that the Libertarians "are too inclusive". And you say that you don't regard pacifism as a threat. So you are saying that if the Libertarian party adopted the principles of pacifism that wouldn't be a threat, not only to your party but to the entire US? Not true.

All of the groups would probably claim to espouse a principle of non-aggression. But the marxists would claim that big business is exerting force on the workers. Anarchists would claim that a proper government must exert force on them. Pacificts would claim that everybody is exerting force on them.

Why did you neglect to specifically mention the skeptics? Perhaps because this nihilistic epistemology has thoroughly infected the Libertarian party. If nothing is certain, then nothing is knowable, which not only allows all of these ideologies to mingle together but allows the Libertarian party to make such weird claims as that the US is exerting force on Iran and would probably lead them to disallow the US from conducting total war in self defense. (Because we would be exerting force on someone who didn't agree their aggressive government.)

I'll tell you what, let me remove that one sentence that is so disagreeable and see if you can agree with the rest of my post:

The emphasized idea [that it is wrong to initiate force], divorced from its rational/moral base, is precisely the problem with the libertarian movement.

They take the above principle as primary without its philosophic base and therefore they misinterpret and misapply it. In other words they have no consistent set of ideas which integrates all of their knowledge, they have no philosophy.

[DavidOdden]

Forceful exclusion of peaceful competition is initiation of aggressive force.

There is no governmental restriction against peaceful competition. The only restriction is that private parties may not use retaliatory force. As long as a private company can operate according to that principle, there's no problem. No private party has a right to engage in retaliatory force, and doing so is an immoral and legally prohibited act. The government, on the other hand, does have a right (indeed an obligation) to engage in retaliatory force according to the law. From that right flows the right to prevent others from taking what is right for the government.

I want the right to set up a business. Such a business would, for a fee, provide to voluntary customers such services as law, defence, security, and arbitration.

Are you speaking of Burns Security (to give a concrete example)? You'll have to elaborate on the "law" aspects. But there is nothing in Objectivism that requires security-guarding to be carried out by government police. For that matter, there is nothing in Objectivism that requires you to lie down and take a beating when attacked, so you certainly have the emergency right to immediate self-defense (which can be carried out by your agents, that is, bodyguards).

What you do not have the right to do as a business is use force in retribution for a claimed wrong, nor do you have the right to ad hoc define a claimed wrong. Thus you cannot write your own law, nor hire a company to write the law for you.

Any Rand says that a capitalist society requires adherence to natural, objective law, and this requires a territorial, monopolistic, state to formulate and enforce. Yet she is putting forth a double standard here. Does it not also require adherence to natural law to create a ton of steel, a bushel of wheat, or an airplane which flies? Must these goods and services also be monopolized by a state?

No, they are monopolized by nature itself. I don't understand what your objection is. There must be a monopoly on what "the law" is and a single determination of how it is enforced. Please note, though, that this is not a metaphysical requirement, it is predicated on man's nature and the choice to live according to man's nature. So unlike gravity where you can't decide "I'm gonna ignore the nature of the universe and break the law of gravity", you can actually act contrary to man's nature and use force rather than reason.

So given the context where we have decided that we will live as men, according the nature of man, and not act as animals or barbarians, we have to ask "What does that entail". Well, it entails not using force. But of course pacifism in response to barbarism is suicidal, so we must allow some use of force in order to exclude force. That then is the exclusive purpose of government -- to control the use fo force, according to moral law.

If I were starting a business of this sort, I would start by drafting a minimal set of laws, based on natural law, proscribing various forms of initiatory aggression, murder, theft, trespass, vandalism etc...

I disagree with your laws. May I suggest that you scan some of the anarchism threads because this topic does come up. The problem with your argument is the myth of "natural law". A simple illustration of that problem is copyright, that there is no "natural law" characterization of the proper duration of my copyright, or the nature of the "fair use" exception. If individuals can disagree as to those two points, then we have the basis for a war.

Other codes of law could be formulated for other purposes, such as establishing a framework for commercial contracts. The basic principle of contract law, make good the debts and obligations you voluntarily assume to others and pledge in exchange for some value in return, can be found in natural law.

Again, when your company holds to one set of contract laws and mine holds to another set, which ones will be enforced? This is a very real issue for ordinary sales of goods. There must be unique laws, ones that are not contradictory, and individuals announcing "natural law gives me this right" does not yield such uniqueness. There are billions of civil court cases which establish that beyond any possible doubt.

[JMartins]

When Libertarians advocate anarcho-capitalism with competing governments, I'm always reminded of the tv-series Jericho. The sort of existence portrayed in that series, is most likely the logical conclusion of your ideas. Collective warfare between competing "governments" and their private armies.

Edited February 2, 2009 by JMartins

[MartianHoplite]

What you do not have the right to do as a business is use force in retribution for a claimed wrong, nor do you have the right to ad hoc define a claimed wrong. Thus you cannot write your own law, nor hire a company to write the law for you.

I agree. However, I go further, no entity, not even government, should use force in retribution. Force should be limited exclusively to defense that is the immediate repulsion of force with force. If someone wrongs another, and is not successfully defended against, does this imply that they have got away clean? No, I have described in a previous post how a criminal can be driven out of society or brought to account for past wrongs without the use of force.

You are right again that I cannot write my own law. Natural law is implied logically in the nature of things. It cannot be made, unmade, altered, extended, subracted from or altered by any human agency. Human reason is adequate to the task of determining what is in accord with natural law, and what is in contradiction to it. I do not need a government to tell me these things. It is, however, beneficial for me to put to paper what I understand to be natural law, and to publish a code of conduct derived from natural law. By publishing my understanding of natural law, others, even those with a defective understanding of moral philosophy, have the opportunity to avoid my defensive use of force by refraining from transgressing against me and my customers.

I don't understand what your objection is. There must be a monopoly on what "the law" is and a single determination of how it is enforced.

It does not follow.

It matters not to me how others understand the law, so long as I am able to purchase the protection that I desire, based on my understanding of the law. If I can contract to have my person and property defended, then my needs in this regard are fulfilled. If some Catholic, say Tom Monaghan, (to use a real-life example) wants to build a gated community that prohibits pornography and contraception, then that's his right, even if his reasons are utterly irrational. It's also my right not to live there, to decline invitations to visit, and to chuckle and shake my head.

This is not fundamentally different than a state-based system, since there is more that one state. There is not a global monopoly on what "the law" is and a single determination of how it is enforced. Luckily, the foibles of foreign lands don't negatively impact me too much. They would be even less annoying if irrational people, rather than taking over whole countries, were only able to stamp their kind of crazy on, at most, a neighborhood at a time.

Again, my basic point was that adherence to natural law does not require a monopoly. Companies have to adhere to natural laws to produce virtually all worthwhile products and services. As with ethical laws, they're free to disregard these laws. The consequence is that their products don't perform as advertised and they go out of business. Likewise with law and protection, most companies will sell something close to natural law. There might be a few irrational zealots who would pay to live in Tom Monaghan's Ave Maria community, but most people, even those who share their specific sort of irrationality, aren't going to pay a security firm more to restrict their behavior when they can more easily and more economically regulate it themselves.

A simple illustration of that problem is copyright, that there is no "natural law" characterization of the proper duration of my copyright, or the nature of the "fair use" exception. If individuals can disagree as to those two points, then we have the basis for a war.

Intellectual property is problematic for precisely the reasons you state. However, since this is a subject on which natural law is largely mute, the proper solution is to solve these ambiguities by contractual means. The specific solution adopted seems to be less important than a lot of people believe. For example the US Supreme Court has ruled in Gottschalk v. Benson that computer algorithms cannot be patented, yet the computer software industry has nevertheless seen furious development and progress over the last decades. Assuming that disagreement will lead to war seems a little sensationalistic.

Again, when your company holds to one set of contract laws and mine holds to another set, which ones will be enforced?

That would simply have to be specified in the contract to avoid ambiguity. There is ample precedent for this. It is possible today for a company in North Carolina to negotiate a contract with another firm in New York and to specify that any disputed are to be settled in the Texas courts under California law.

There must be unique laws, ones that are not contradictory

International trade proceeds apace despite the fact both parties to the trade are subject to different, sometimes contradictory, legal systems. You're going to have to do a better job of justifying your claim.

Standardization, such as on railroad gauge, the size of copy paper, or the form factor of ATM cards, can be good. When it is, the market will produce standardization. Some sorts of laws will fall into this category. Diversity can also be good, such as in the production of clothing, restaurant meals, and films. When diversity is good, that's what the market will produce. Some laws may also fall into this category. In no case do we need a government to force us to standardize what it would make sense for us to standardize and diversify what it would make sense for us to diversify.

Tactical teams show up from both "competing" states and the result is at best a Mexican standoff and at worst a bloody shooting war in a residential neighborhood. Imagine the results if surrounding neighbors are signed up with additional competing governments.

You presumably believe that this outcome would not be in the rational self-interest of those involved, else why point it out as a flaw with free-market law and protection? Since it is admittedly not in anyone's rational self-interest for this to happen, what view of human nature does it presuppose to assume that it would necessarily happen anyway?

In actual fact, security firms would be driven by two factors to prevent this outcome. First is public opinion. Any security firm that acquired a reputation for protecting criminals would lose customer, judgements for restitution would pile up against it as accomplices to its client's crimes, and it would quickly go bankrupt, lose its credit rating and become a marginalised pariah firm, beset on all sides by hostile rival firms. Second, agreeing to protect someone unconditionally is just simply bad business. Certain kinds of people, honest, productive people, require relatively little protection, while other sorts, criminal and aggressive sorts, require relatively a lot of protection. Firms would therefore need to screen their customers and make it clear that they will only protect them from unprovoked aggression. If a dispute arose between clients of two different firms, each would have to evaluate the justice of its own client's case before using force against the other. Probably the dispute would simply end up in arbitration with both firms agreeing to abide by the ruling. That's far less costly for all parties, including -- ultimately -- those in the wrong, vs. open warfare

[Marc K.]

MartianHoplite:

Please attribute your quotes. Hint: hitting the reply button at the bottom of a post will provide a proper attribution.

If all of the quotes in your post are taken from a single post, then attributing it once at the top of the post is OK.

For instance where did the last quote in your last post come from?

Also, let me ask you question. Do you consider the situation in the US in the early 1800's to be acceptable? That is, would you agree with the South's characterization of the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression"?

Edited February 2, 2009 by Marc K.